What Do I Stand For?

So this week we talked about documentary aesthetics and their ability to influence social and media change. 

I’m going to use the example of the documentary by Gabriela Cowperthwaite, Blackfish (2013). Here is the trailer for Blackfish:

The documentary raised awareness of a different perspective on killer whale captivity, resulting in audiences sympathizing with the orca that was responsible for the death of the Sea World employee as it blamed humans for the animals’ aggressive behavior.

In turn, this influenced media change, as it became a large-scale PR crisis for Sea World. The company published a variety of videos and press releases to inform the public that the “facts” presented in the films were false (Osegi 2014). The documentary and the PR strategy engaged in a content war – with both sides providing contradicting information (Osegi 2014).

Social media propelled the “Blackfish effect,” particularly through the use of Change.org petitions (Zimmerman 2014). It changed the public opinion that killer whale shows were light-hearted entertainment to that of being an act of cruelty towards the highly intelligent animals. 

The documentary also affected SeaWorld’s corporate relationships, and musicians including Willie Nelson cancelled their SeaWorld gigs. Ironically, Cowperthwaite says she is not an activist herself and her intention in making the documentary was not for it to be so controversial – showing that a documentary can influence an audience reaction outside of the filmmaker’s intention.

“I couldn’t have been more naïve about the situation in SeaWorld,” Cowperthwaite said, "I'd see hundreds of children smiling and think, 'How can something that makes people so happy be such a bad thing?’ All of us are complicit, starting with myself” (Barkham 2013).

The emotional reaction was mainly commandeered by the cinematic aesthetics of the documentary. The stylistic features of the documentary allowed audiences to empathise with the suffocating conditions of confinement – sense of actuality, as the large size of the killer whale was well positioned against the small size of the confinement pool through effective camera techniques. 

In this way, audiences were able to form their opinions based on what they see – emphasizing the nature of the documentary as presenting itself as highly factual. 

Osegi, Andrew (2014) ‘SeaWorld vs. Blackfish: A Crisis PR War Rages on Social Media’ Business 2 Community. Last viewed 27 May 2014http://www.business2community.com/crisis-management/seaworld-vs-blackfish-crisis-pr-war-rages-social-media-0782970#!Re99l

Zimmerman, Tim (2014) ‘First Person: How Far Will the Blackfish Effect Go?’ National Geographic, last viewed 27 May 2014 http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2014/01/140113-blackfish-seaworld-killer-whale-orcas/

This week we looked at apps and the Internet of Things. It is no surprise that digital media has had a profound impact on the way in which we interact with each other and our surroundings, as well as shape the behaviour of society overall. This is heavily due to the workings of apps.

As Bratton states, the mobile phone in our society is more of a necessity than a luxury (Bratton 2014). As a working, university student, I experience so much variety and instability in my average day that I fully understand the smartphone experience. Without my smartphone – and its apps, I would not be able to survive my day (not literally).

According to Bratton (2014) an app, “connects the single remote device to an ocean of data and brings that data to bear on the user’s immediate interests.”

For example, to start my morning I will check the weather app. The weather app will connect my iPhone to the relevant data and will then automatically give me a forecast for Sydney, as that is the location that is set on my phone. I will check my Sydney Transport app that will sort their data in order to show me a transport route that best suits my schedule.

However, my predominant use of apps is for social media – Twitter, Facebook and Instagram in particular. This ties into the notion of Bollier’s notion of the Ambient Commons.

Bollier states there are “media feeds everywhere” (Bollier 2013). He attributes the notion of “ambient commons” towards the way that we take these feeds for granted as part of our landscape (Bollier 2013).  Apps (mainly surrounded and built on advertising) allow us to access newsfeeds of information all the time, thus “affecting how we think, behave and orient ourselves to the world” (Bollier 2013).

Facebook, for example, has created a generation of young ‘selfie’ takers – whose sole purpose of taking photos is for uploading on Facebook and attaining self-promoting “likes”. The whole premise of photo taking – where you’d smile for a photo in order to preserve a memory of a place or other people – has been subverted by digital media.

Photo editing apps have also been created solely for the selfie – where every aspect of a person’s looks can be edited. A completely subverted photograph is uploaded, therefore not preserving anything real at all. Apps like these demonstrate the way in which digital media has affected behaviour – almost compulsively for some poor people.

 Through the use of apps – which are largely funded by advertising – retailers can monitor the behaviour of individuals and target them for advertising based on their interests (Bollier 2013). Tracking a user’s “likes”, location, and check-ins – predominantly through Facebook and Google Maps, can do this.

When you look around in the train or bus – unfortunately sometimes even in the car - pretty much every single person is using an app on a smartphone. For the cosmopolitan person, apps are everything – they structure our lives and have the ability to control them too. 

Bratton, Benjamin (2014) 'On Apps and Elementary Forms of Interfacial Life: Object, Image, Superimposition', Bratton.info, December, http://www.bratton.info/projects/texts/on-apps-and-elementary-forms-of-interfacial-life/

This week we talked about affect. There are a number of meanings that are attributed to the word ‘affect,’ but for the purpose of this blog I am going to refer to ‘affect’ as a reaction and a potential, as these are the two ways I best understand the concept.

As Andrew said in the lecture, communications events contain framing and premeditations. The ‘affect’ that this has is predominantly the potential to cause us to rethink and reshape our opinions.

In this way, this potential usually results in a reaction – sometimes forceful and instant, or otherwise thoughtful and gradual. 

Brian Massumi talks about affect as being a “margin of maneuverability” whereby it has the potential to determine what we do and where we go in every situation (Massumi with Zournazi 2002), therefore making potential a reactionary result of an affect. 

He states, “Affect is simply a body movement looked at from the point of view of its potential – its capacity to come to be, or better, come to do.”

Emotion is also a partial aspect of affect as it works in conjunction with reaction. When an instant response or judgment towards a situation occurs without thinking - that is affect driven by emotion.

Massumi also discusses how due to the way that affect results in the potential to react, affect can also be a manipulative mechanism of power (Massumi 2002).   

Affect, as a potential, has the ability to be controlled. If the media conveys an event or figure in a certain light, the potential for a certain reaction can by shaped. This is most obviously demonstrated in political media, but is also present in all other media forms. Edward Said discusses this in his theories of “Orientalism” and the representation of Middle-Eastern cultures by Western society.

Reflecting the poor political/military relations between USA and the Middle East, Western media has come to portray Islamic cultures as the 'other'. They are depicted as villains in entertainment media and are instantly blamed for criminal events by the news media. The affect of this is the potential for people to react to this media in a racist, violent and hateful way - reflected in the isolation of oriental people in Western society, which is highly beneficial to the US govt. in pursuing its interests. 

Therefore it is thoroughly evident that affect is essential to communications as it is, in essence, the power that influences society and shapes public opinion through the media.   

This week we talked about micro-politics and the way in which “new media are enabling people to organize locally, to form new communities” (Murphie, ARTS3091 Course Outline).

Micropolitics can be defined as “a creation of techniques for collaboration” (Jellis 2009). The main “techniques” are the media and according to Howard Rheingold this will allow cooperative organisations to emerge that facilitate collective action and play a central role in our ecology (Rheingold 2008).

Rheingold states, “biology is war by which only the fiercest survive” (Rheingold 2008). Our ecology is built on the dominance of powerful institutions, as historically exemplified by the government and the military. In recent times due to the power of modern technology, these institutions have been challenged and sometimes defeated by democratic media.

However, due to the power of media moguls and politics of ownership, broadcast media can become a dominant institution itself and turn against its democratic values and purposes.

Micropolitics, and the new P2P movement, discusses the potential for digital/online media – such as social media, to create “peer producing communities” (Bauwens 2014). These facilities allow for the universal sharing of information and ideas (Bauwens 2014), which can lead to the implementation of bottom-up politics.

Terranova connotes that biological communication in the new ecology is more concerned with “the power of the small” (Terranova 2004).

In other words, these are regular people – separate from the dominant institutions, who when isolated do not have much power.  However, when forming a global network to create “open and productive structures” (Terranova 2004) they have the ability to “outcompete and outcooperate” (Bauwens 2014) powerful corporations.

This is because a globally networked arrangement will always be larger than isolated corporations as they are not easily controlled or predicted, and are leaderless (Terranova 2004).

An individual in a P2P community also changes the nature of the existing ecology as they still act out of self-interest, but in a non-dominating way. Rather, they act to punish cheaters of the system regardless of the cost to themselves (Rheingold 2008). This is exemplified by the acts of Edward Snowden and the micropolitical organisation that is WikiLeaks.  

I personally believe that although a P2P community sounds good in theory, there is a reason that our ecology has evolved the way it has and that history is somewhat cyclical – humans love power. There will always be dominance as long as there is ownership and creativity is always owned. We might just have better productivity and more outlets to express our concerns as technology continues to advance.

Although new media provides a great platform for ‘autonomy and creativity’ (Terranova 2004), I think that as long as powerful institutions still have the power to remove and control the availability of this new media to the public, it will never be fully autonomous or micropolitical. 

Rheingold, Howard (2008) ’Way-new collaboration’, YouTube.com (TED),http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d5s3Z0iesRM Jellis, Thomas (2009) ‘Disorientation and micropolitics: a response’,spacesof[aesthetic]experimentation, <http://www.spacesofexperimentation.net/montreal/disorientation-and-micropolitics-a-response/> 

Terranova,Tiziana (2004) ‘From Organisms to Multitudes’ in Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age London: Pluto: 101-106 Bauwens, Michel (2014) ’Openness, a necessary revolution into a smarter world’, P2P Foundation, February 4, <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/what-is-p2p-an-introduction/2014/02/04> 

This week we talked about the use of mediated technologies by the state and other institutions. In this post, I will specifically refer to the ramifications and impacts media technologies have on privacy and transparency, when used by these institutions. 

Towards the end of the lecture, Andrew posed the question of whether we are stuck in old-fashioned notions of privacy? Are things not as bad as they seem? Or are they worse? 

There are clearly two sides of this argument. One side can argue the notion of 'naked transparency' and the way in which networked technologies have allowed for the "liberation of data," perhaps forcing institutions to be more open with the public about their policies and practices. WikiLeaks and the Edward Snowden case exemplify this. 

However, one can also argue that new technologies allow "information rich democracies" to use personal data to "engineer political responses" and solve public problems without justification (Morozov 2013). 

In this way, privacy and transparency exist as a “tolerated contradiction” (Morozov 2013).

My view on this is that we release our personal data out of “self-interest” (Morozov 2013). When we use free services such as Google and Facebook, we accept that they are subsidized by advertising. Therefore we have to accept that the information we post on this media will be accessed and used by advertising institutions to personalize and target their advertising.

The whole premise of networked technologies such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other social media (that are democratic in nature) are to increase connectivity and sharing across networks. While privacy settings are there for users to control individuals that can and can’t view their content, I believe it is naïve to sign up to social media and expect full privacy over your content. As soon as you post it, they own it.

I think the predominant issue that people have with the collection and analysis of personal data is the way that it enables “long term strategies of manipulation intended to mold and adjust individual contact” (Morozov 2013). I understood this to mean that we do not actually volunteer private information, but the ‘metadata’ that can be collected from the media that we use is what is derived for analysis by institutions.

Small bits of metadata, such as someone’s liking of a band’s Facebook page rather than explicitly stating their liking for that band, can combine to paint a revealing portrait of an individual (Solove 2013). This is also known as the ‘aggregation effect’ (Solove 2013).

Institutions can then use metadata to tailor policies and enforce behavior standards as well as control what is viewed by each individual based on their personal tastes, as exemplified by social media advertising.

Going back to the notion that privacy is a ‘tolerated contradiction’ – social media demonstrates democratic positivity in the way in which users can share and discuss political events, allowing for an extent of transparency. I agree with Morozov that without a certain amount of civil participation, there would be no ‘public’ (Morozov). 

However, there are limitations to this concept when it comes to the manipulation of personal information by institutions for undisclosed use. I think we just need to face the fact that when we give information to social media, we are not only giving it to our friends and networks, but to the institutions that run that very media and use us for their own corporate gain.

As Morozov states, “citizens take on the role of information machines that feed the techno-bureaucratic complex with our data.” Yep, that’s us. To the fortunate people who have not yet sold their souls to Twitter and Facebook, it’s too late for me, but save yourselves. 

Morozov, Evgeny (2013) 'The Real Privacy Problem', MIT Technology Review, October 22, http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520426/the-real-privacy-problem/ 

This week we talked about interaction in relation to computation and the media. I’m going to focus mainly on ideas from the Paul Dourish reading to express my thoughts and ideas on this week’s topic, as I found he had some interesting insights I could definitely relate to.

Interactive systems surround us and are incorporated into everything we do. These systems are now mostly ‘computational’ due to the excessive use and development of computer technologies. Dourish likens the interaction between different computational components to an ‘ecosystem’ – which we are familiar with from my previous posts. He states, “the way we experience the world is through directly interacting with it” (Dourish).

Within this ecosystem there is “tangible computing” and “social computing” (Dourish).

Tangible computing is the physical element to interaction. Such as the way we use a mouse as direct interaction with our computers. Dourish describes the future of tangible interaction as getting computers ‘out of the way’ to provide more direct interactive experiences (Dourish).

Robots are an apt example of tangible interaction. Created by humans, they are being used to achieve tasks that humans themselves cannot do. They can also be fully autonomous. This has prompted people actually questioning whether robots are ‘taking our jobs’. 

Interaction, however, refers to not only what is being achieved but also how it is being achieved, and therefore is very procedural (Dourish). The functioning of a robot is solely dependent on its computational interaction with humans in order to achieve its task.

Social computing explores the differences between how we interact with computers and how we interact with each other. Textual interaction allowed for the creation of a ‘dialogue’ between computer and user, as the computer could use language instead of codes to convey its message (Dourish).

The simplest example of this is when we enter keywords into our search bar on our computers and it responds with results derived from the same key words. This entire process involves a series of coded interactions within the computer, and is then formed into a language that we can understand.

Social computing portrays ‘single-user’ interaction – where one user’s communication with the computer is enhanced by other people’s interactions (Dourish) for example, Facebook check-ins. In this way, the user is aware of where their friends are and what they are doing based on their computing interactions, as opposed to face-to-face interactions, thus highlighting a difference in computing and social relations.

Dourish’s main point is that tangible and social interactions are similar in the sense that they both “exploit the real world through interaction” if by social or physical means. 

Dourish, Paul (2004) ‘A History of Interaction’, in Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied InteractionCambridge, MA: MIT Press: 1-23.

Following Bateson's theories, we started talking more about the mind and its functions. In doing this, we started exploring the concept of memory, and the ways in which mind and memory are linked to digital media.

Andrew described memory as a “symbolic process” – where we can create representations and “process them, store them away in an archive of some kind (brain or hard drive) and then recall them at will.” This refers to the ‘computational theory of mind.’

In this theory, digital media is a metaphorical brain in the way it stores memory. However unlike the brain, digital memories never degenerate (Chun).

For example, at the end of last year, Facebook gave users the option of viewing a “year in review” video that collated their most popular statuses and photos in a slideshow. It was not until viewing the video that my memory of certain events had triggered. Some of those memories had already been lost in my mind, but were still stored away on Facebook.

This also links to the notion of ‘The Extended Mind’ where our media acts as an extension of our minds as it serves as a memory aid for us.

Another idea that was explored in relation to the mind was the notion of the present. Digital media, in its embodied cognition, has created its own real time that has replaced local space and time (Chun). 

Wark says, “the media tactition presents an image that endangers the conventions of journalistic narrative time, yet which is capable of inserting itself into it” (Wark in Chun). This is exemplified by Tumblr, whereby users from around the world are re-blogging the same content although they are in different times and are experiencing contextual difference relating to those times, such as seasons.

The reporting of events, such as the disappearance of the Malaysian airlines plane also demonstrate how media coverage events travel along the same vectors as the event itself (Chun), making the present hard to engage.

We get constant updates on the event ‘as they are happening’ (so they say) but usually from a time space outside of ours in Australia (so in the past) and therefore we really aren’t getting ‘present’ information.

The media attempts to work with the past, through repetition and memory – even if it is considered a ‘present’ event, and as the ‘present’ itself is actually processed in our minds, we are in fact literally always experiencing the past (Murphie).

Sleep on that for tonight guys. Good luck. 

Kyong-Chun, Wendy Hui (2011) ‘The Enduring Ephemeral, or The Future is a Memory’ in Huhtamo, Errki and Parikka, Jussi (eds.) Media Archaeology: Approaches, Applications, and Implications Berkeley: University of California Press: 184-203

This week we studied Gregory Bateson and his theories on media ecologies, and communicative patterns of relations. In order to reflect my understanding of these concepts, I am going to talk about my own 'patterns of relations' and the way that I view my media environment as an 'ecology.’

The word ‘ecology’ in itself implies a study of environments and its “structure, content and impact on people” (Media Ecology Association). Bateson likens the media environment to ‘ecology,’ as it is evolutionary and has cultural consequences (Milberry). This also reflects the theory of cybernetics – which I am sure I will commonly refer to in future posts.

According to Bateson, the ecosystems in media ecology consist of all kinds of communication networks, which lead me to Bateson’s next theory of a communicative pattern of relations. An environment consists of “shifting patterns of relations across the mind, body and world” (Bateson). This is as applicable to the media environment as it is to our natural one.

Personally, the ecosystems in my media environment are quite limited as I mainly communicate via the Internet. However, the platforms of online communication that I use are quite varied and subject to change. For example, two years ago I would post up to two statuses per day on Facebook. Now, I rarely post on Facebook as a result of converting to Twitter as my main means of expressing myself – primarily communicating my anger toward Sydney Trains.

This represents an evolution in my ecology that had consequences on the pattern of relations between my mind, and the world – as I now feel obliged to tweet at every hour of the day. I have also noticed that the modern media ecology has, to an extent, eliminated the facet of the ‘body’ as people no longer value the difference between face-to-face communication and technological forms.

An example of this is the use of Skype. I was Skype calling a friend with our microphones turned off and our videos turned on. I had made a joke and my friend typed ‘haha’ in response out of habit. I could clearly see on the screen that he was not amused.

In this way, patterns of relation can be conflicting as the media ecology continues to evolve. I am now trying to reconcile emotive communicating (or body) with technological (world and mind), so much so that I find myself texting or messaging solely in emoticons rather than words.

Therefore, media (as our environment) plays a huge role in influencing how we act and what we feel (Media Ecology Association). All I can say is, although progress is good, it is definitely not without consequence.

Milberry, Kate (n.d.) ‘Media Ecology’, Oxford Bibliographies, <http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0054.xml#>

Media Ecology Association ‘What is Media Ecology’ <http://www.media-ecology.org/media_ecology/>

Welcome to ARTS3091 Advanced Media Uses! 

I am using this same blog from ARTS2090 as I feel that both courses deal with similar topics. So if you guys are interested in my media posts, there is plenty more material to have a look at from last year if you scroll down.

Most of the posts will most likely be written posts as that is usually my preferred way of communicating my ideas and connecting them with the relevant theories. However, i'll try to change things up a bit on the occasion that I am feeling creative. 

1. Unnamed manuscript (Dane 1999-2013)

2. Note written by Brahms on his manuscript (Dane 1999-2013)

3. Visualisation of music genre in vast digital age - from The School of Rock movie (Garry 2011)

4. Bach's signature from manuscript (Dane 1999-2013)

When publishing changes, so does society. Investigate and compare the impact of two publication technologies, one pre-1900 and one post-2000, on a specific aspect of society (e.g. education, politics, creative industries, science, entertainment, social relationships publishing pre-1900). 

Music publishing is the presentation and distribution of music and musical content including musical scores. To me, music publishing can also refer to the way music is communicated to the public aurally and visually, as well as textually. In this ‘essay’, I will compare the traditional handwritten manuscript to the digital music publishing of today and I will assess the impact that these technologies have had on the evolution of music in society. My aim is to demonstrate through comparison, along with the incorporation of relevant theories and concepts relating to publishing, that technology influences transformation in publishing which in turn effects societal change. As this task calls for being explorative with the word ‘essay,’ I am going to approach this as a reflective blog post and will incorporate first person pronouns in order to more effectively and personally explain my ideas.

I chose this question because I felt it was the most fitting in terms of my understanding of this course and was relatable to the most interesting concepts about publishing. I am also a massive history and music geek. To those outside of ARTS2090 who might happen to be reading this, I genuinely hope you find this stuff informative and interesting (because I do), and not too much of a waste of your time. And now I’ll begin…

Pre – 1900 Music Printing Technology

Music scores represent the direct connection between the composer and the performer. Therefore it is essential that it is as accurate as possible as it is the only communication between what is created and what is reproduced (Loni 2005-2011).

Rather than using the printing press, I decided to go further back in time and research the traditional handwritten manuscript. As a composer of music myself (modern day Mozart), I can relate to the art of handwriting scores and the hard work and ‘tech’-nique that it requires, therefore I classify it as a ‘tech’-nology. Before the printing press, music notation was imprecise and involved the manual scribbling of notes and hand decoration of scores (Parlor Songs Academy 2013). Musical manuscripts were seen during the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th centuries even after the invention of the printing press, as the printing of music had too many complexities and was problematic – as we can see in the modern age, but I’ll talk about that later.

Musical scores were usually attributed to monastic scriptoriums, which were rooms devoted to the hand-lettered professional copying of manuscripts (Ayiter 2013), sort of like a library as well as a publishing house. Manuscripts were made of papyrus, and parchment from calf, sheep or goat’s skin until the Middle Ages when paper came into use (Ayiter 2013). In the 7th to 9th centuries parchment was scrubbed for re-use, which is evident in preserved texts that have old messages seeping through (Ayiter 2013). An inkpot with a sharpened quill feather or reed pen was used for etching (Ayiter 2013). The pen was also an important technology of the time, one that is far out-dated now.

Due to the precision and effort involved in creating a manuscript, music was often ‘published’ as oral history, where priests or performers would pass down music and it was remembered by the younger generations (Parlor Songs Academy 2013). This form of publishing impacted society greatly as it garnered a deeper appreciation and meaning for music. These days I can barely remember a line from a song let alone the artist due to the abundance of music – but again, I’ll get to that later. P.S. keep the concept of archiving in mind

         The meaning of music was off great contextual importance to society in the Romantic era, and this was primarily due to the artistic quality of the manuscript. Yehudi Menuhin, the late violinist and instructor, wrote an introduction in a Harvard University Press edition of handwritten scores by 19th century composer Johannes Brahms. He stated in the introduction, “I have always felt a peculiar frisson upon seeing for the first time the actual handwriting of a master composer, alive with its irregularities, its visible impulses, its detectable moments of ease and worry, of joy and despair…no printed score can offer such insights” (Menuhin ND in Dane 1999-2013).

         Original scores written in the composer’s own note hand can paint a graphic picture of the music – a form of visualisation. The score is an insight into the compositional process of the composer – his development of style, and how he would like the piece to be performed, and it is also free of editorial mistakes (Dane 1999-2013). For example, Brahms’ different handwritings show his collaboration with his violinist friend Joseph Joachim, as Joachim’s own changes are found in red ink on Brahms’ manuscript (Dane 1999-2013). The manuscript form of publishing also bears notations of everyone involved in the printing of the score, such as the copyist, engraver and instrumental collaborator (Dane 1999-2013), demonstrating to me a more effective form of copyright than modern digitised society…I’ll get to that later. P.S.S. hope you still remember archiving, now think about metadata in relation to what I just said

         In the 19th century, manuscripts corresponded with the view that composer’s were musical geniuses, and were treated with reverence (Dane 1999-2013). In the Romantic era, the creative mind garnered much more respect than it does today, and I presume this is because human creativity pre-dated technology as we know it and the Industrial Revolution.

         According to Dane (for full references follow my link to his article in my bibliography), Bach used a multi-nibbed pen, which allowed him to draw several staves at once (Dane 1999-2013). The unsteady lines on the manuscript showed that Bach was “unsteady” with writing, in keeping with his nature (Dane 1999-2013). Manuscripts gave insights into the personalities of great artists such as Bach simply through the way in which their art was published.

            Bach’s manuscripts were sold for paper after his death in 1750, as it was expensive at the time (Dane 1999-2013). This is demonstrated in his work, as bars are crammed onto the page to minimise wastage and he employs musical shorthand – such as numerals and symbols to save space (Dane 1999-2013).

   One of Yohann Sebastian Bach’s Solo Violin Sonatas

(Taken from Dane 1999-2013)

 This demonstrates how manuscripts are reflective of personal and societal context, and therefore how society changes along with publishing.

         Although manuscripts resulted in beautiful, artistic pieces of work, they did have negative impacts in the sense that they were impractical for mass production and circulation (Parlor Songs Academy 2013) – too slow to produce and reproduce. This is even conveyed by Beethoven whose music became so rough and extreme as he got older that it was no longer playable from the original score. “I have no time to paint my letters,” he stated (Beethoven ND in Dane 1999-2013).

         Jump to the 21st century, goodbye manuscript and gramophone…hello computers, Internet and the digitisation of music.

 Digitisation of Music in the 21st Century

         The Internet has encouraged a participatory culture that allows people to create, modify and upload their own content as well as others’ content to the World Wide Web – thus creating new, unprofessional forms of publishing. This has resulted in free, out-of-copyright musical scores entering the public domain (Georgiou 2012). People are performing pieces from the 18th and 19th centuries using editions found online that contain several misinterpretations and inaccuracies (Georgiou 2012). The affordability, availability, and accessibility of computing, scanning and printing equipment has resulted in the abundance of musical scores available online (Georgiou 2012). Due to copyright laws preventing original scores to be available online for free, uploaded sheet music is commonly out-of-date, incorrect or heavily modified (Georgiou 2012). This has led theorists into discussions about metadata in music publishing. I will use the concept to help me with my comparisons.

Metadata is essentially data about data. If you want an official definition it is, “data that describes the attributes of a resource, characterises its relationships to other resources…[and] supports the discovery, management, and use of a ‘resource’” (Velucci, 1999: 205 in Morris 2012: 852).

         It seems to me that metadata gets more complicated as modes of publishing broaden in scale. With manuscripts, the metadata was as simple as it was with CD’s: what song/piece it is, who wrote/composed it, and what album/volume it is from. However, when songs on CD’s became digital files on a computer and manuscripts became PDF’s, metadata was impacted significantly. Metadata is now used as a tool for de-contextualisation and helps users sort and collect digital music (Morris 2012: 851). Now that music is separated from its original creator and downloaded from unofficial sources, metadata is crucial in providing navigational and archival functions (Morris 2012: 852 and 860), as it is a way of classifying and personalising digital music databases and libraries through memory preferences and music download history, for example iTunes.

(Screenshot of my own iTunes library)

         Digital sheet music, when processed by an OCR reader, can be manipulated, re-worked and re-printed as well as enhanced by multimedia and hyperlinks – creating new music editions of the original score (Georgiou 2012). The “Bach Digital Portal,” developed by the University of Leipzig, gives free access to digital scans of Bach’s original manuscripts. The out-of-copyright editions are in CD/DVD/ROM format and the scanned pages are printed so that the music appears more clearly (Georgiou 2012). According to CD Sheet Music (2009), “while some reorganisation, retitling and touch-up of staff lines is done, we do not proofread the music or fix any of the original errors” (Georgiou 2012).

         The impacts of these digital technologies are that they are low-cost and convenient. The New York Times called digital scores, “a convenient source of music that will not clutter up the piano bench” (New York Times in Georgiou 2012). However, digital publishing has resulted in the formation of a networked society, which in turn has led to a crazy amount of music available for public consumption on online archives – a huge contrast to the manuscripts from back in the day.

  (Tweet taken from Garry 2011)

This brings me to my last discussion – which is the concept of archives. Derrida states, “There is no archive without a place of consignation, without a technique of repetition, and without a certain exteriority. No archive without outside” (Derrida and Prenowitz 1995: 14). In other words, an archive can only survive if constructed to live in an external space as that ensures the possibility of being remembered and reproduced (Derrida and Prenowitz 1995: 14). My analysis of this notion positions the Internet as the external space and the original manuscripts of the past as the archive-able content. Archiving frames the context for the core ideas of my essay: the comparison and links between archives and manuscripts, and digitisation and metadata.

         Archiving platforms have power and authority as they can limit and expose our access to information as well as maintain and manipulate history (Wesolowski 2013) – Facebook being a prime example. Metadata enables us to search through musical archives and explore connections between different publishing mechanisms of music made possible by digitisation – such as online audio and video (as I mentioned in my introduction, I perceive music to be publishable audibly, visually and textually).

         Lastly, due to digitisation, barriers for publishing have been removed and this has resulted in an abundance of music and the formation of a new-media philosophy of “if it’s not recent, it’s not important” (Ogle 2009 in Luis 2011). This poses the question of whether editing is dead, and if editors are in fact becoming archivists, as publishers are more concerned with creating digital archives as opposed to producing quality content (Georgiou 2012). The Internet is full of false editions of musical scores, exemplifying that in the participatory, digital culture, it is the role of the public to manipulate and edit content.

         So in conclusion, I hope I have successfully demonstrated the way in which both technologies impacted their respective societies in similar and different ways, through the framework of metadata and archives. I definitely agree with and made obvious, the notion that with changes in publishing, comes changes in society, as publishing influences nearly everything we do, particularly in the digital age.

Please view the photo set following this blog post for more visual examples. 

Bibliography

Ayiter, E, N.D. ‘The History of Visual Communication’, Citrinitas.com. Blog last Accessed 13 June 2013.

http://www.citrinitas.com/history_of_viscom/book.html

C., Luis 2011, ‘Who’s Got Archive Fever?’ Transitioning Publics and Publishing – Arts2090, Wordpress. Blog last Accessed 13 June 2013.

http://publishingintransition.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/archive-fever/

Dane, Jeffrey 1999-2013 ‘Manuscripts, Pens and Composers’, MF Files. Last accessed 13 June 2013.

http://www.mfiles.co.uk/manuscripts-pens-and-composers.htm

Derrida, J; Prenowitz, E 1995, ‘Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression’, Diacrtics, Vol.25, No.2, pp.9-63. Last accessed 13 June 2013

  Garry, Hugh 2011 ‘Finding Music With Pictures: Data Visualisation for Discovery”, Storify. Last Accessed 13 June 2013.

http://storify.com/huey/finding-music-with-pictures-data-visualisation-for

  Georgiou, Christina A. 2012, ‘Perspectives of music publishing in the twenty-first century: The death of the editor?” Hellenic Journal of Music Education, and Culture, Vol. 3, Art. 2. Last accessed 13 June 2013.

Morris W. Jeremy 2012, ‘Making music behave: Metadata and the digital music commodity’, New Media & Society, vol. 14, no.5, pp.850-866

‘Printing & Publishing of Music: A Short History & How it is done’, The Parlor Songs Academy – Lessons in America’s Popular Music History. Last accessed 13 June 2013.

http://parlorsongs.com/insearch/printing/printing.php

Wesolowski, Laura 2013, ‘Week Five: Our Desire to Archive’, ARTS2090 Publics and Publishing: A personal course archive, WordPress. Last Accessed 13 June 2013.

http://publishingandpublics.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/week-five-our-desire-to-archive/

White, Loni 2005-2011 ‘Relationship Between The Printing Press and Music’, Article Dashboard. Last accessed 13 June 2013.

This is my last post for ARTS2090. It is a conversation between myself and two other friends about our thoughts and experiences of the course.

So according to my blog feedback in the middle of the semester, my area of improvement calls for a deeper comparative and contrasting discussion of ideas (and in this case, forms of published data). I thought that this week's topic - DATA FRICTION - would be the perfect opportunity to that, with the help of Paul N. Edward's "A Vast Machine" reading.

The article essentially talks about the contrast between models and data, in relation to the issue of climate change. He introduces different systems of data and forms of modelling, as well as historical factors, that have resulted in scientific claims about the existence of climate change and thus formed crucial debates surrounding the issue.

His first effectively stated point is that, "without models, there are no data," and "everything we know about the world's climate - past, present and future - we know through models."  in the sense that without models of observations or signals, there would be no data to analyse or process - hence, the debate is void.

The evolving of observational systems has led to the change in global data  - we also no longer have one, but many forms of modelling - therefore, resulting in the "shimmering" (as Edwards calls it) as well as converging of data images. This is where data can either be frictional or meld into a comprehensible argument. 

According to Edwards, 'making global data' (gathering climate information for the whole planet) can be deemed as 'data friction'. I understood this to mean that the processes and factors involved in creating global climate change data are varied and conflicting. 

He goes on to state three computer models that are the basis and form of climate change research - the simulation models, reanalysis models and data analysis models. I won't go through each of them as they aren't important in relation to this post, but I will put forward a question that I wasn't very clear on after reading about each model: Are each of these systems an example of data friction? (As in - does each model give off data that conflicts with the other) or do they work together to meld into coherent data about climate change? 

Edwards then starts talking about the historical aspects relating to climate change (the better part of the reading). He states that during the 1970s "modelling outpaced empirically based knowledge of the global climate." I noted that this was also a form of data friction between modelling and empirical forms of research. 

"Climate knowledge is knowledge about the past," he writes - and we have yet another form of data. "Our perspective on the past keeps changing, for many reasons..." As a history geek, this idea gave me more of an understanding of data friction and how various types of data are used to determine climate change, more so than the scientific model analysis. 

"People long ago observed climate and weather for their own reasons..." People of different time periods and locations used different tools to determine the climate, suited to their own needs. This data is therefore highly contextual and hard to determine as fact when it comes to making global data as well as making data global. But then again, without historical data, there would be no basis for present data that global temperature is actually rising as time goes on - "So you dig into the history of data. You fight metadata friction, the difficulty of recovering contextual knowledge about old records." 

The process of reexamining every data set, analysing data and metadata has caused shimmering data that "keeps on growing. but never resolve(s) into a single definitive record" - indicating the effect of data friction. 

The concept of infrastructural globalism (I won't define the meaning as it is in the reading and easily google-able) relays to the political debate of climate change, and is also another form of data friction. Climate knowledge infrastructure - how do we know that climate change really exists - is still a topic of intense political debate, grounded in data friction, as Edwards states, "In the mid 1990s,...climate change sceptics promoted the idea that "sound science" must mean "incontrovertible proof by observational data," whereas models were inherently untrustworthy." DATA vs. MODELS.

So this week I'm going to blog about social body. 

Now when I think social body, I think of people - social people. People hanging out with friends on the weekend, extroverted people, party people and dirty alcoholics.

Being an overly social body myself, who feels the need to be an annoying presence in someone's life, all the time (seriously, ask anyone), I can relate to this notion.

This is a picture of my friends and I being social bodies: 

Just kidding...it's more like this:

Sadly, these days - where our lives are so fast-paced and we hardly have time to see each other, our communication is predominantly through online mediums such as Facebook. 

When I google the term 'social', images such as these come up first: 

These show the connotation between the term 'social' and 'social media.'

What I am trying to convey is the notion that human beings, as social bodies, have now transformed the traditional way of being social due to technology and new ways of publishing. 

People no longer need to face-to-face communication to send messages to other people - they can simply publish a message through a social media platform and send it out to their desired recipient. 

Unlike the primitive days, human beings are no longer restricted to communicating with people within their own tribal group or social circle. Social media allows people to share messages with a global audience - essentially allowing them to communicate with anyone in the world who is networked to the same platform of media - e.g. Twitter. 

Unfortunately due to this, people have gone from being this: 

To this...:

..but usually with a laptop in front of them (Couldn't find any pictures of a Facebooking sloth). 

This raises the question as to whether human beings are becoming less social bodies. We are no longer hunters and gatherers (everything is ready for us to buy) and we don't have to communicate with others every single day just to obtain the basic necessities of life, like in pre-history. 

But then again, I did just Snapchat a picture of myself in a lecture to all my friends to show them what a good student I am, so maybe we are even more social, but in a much different way. 

Danielle out. 

So this week's word is "ubiquity" which is another word for omnipresence, which can be explained as the property of being present...everywhere.

When I think ubiquity in relation to this course I immediately think of the concept of visualisation. I think omnipresence is something that needs to visualised (physically impossible), or felt - but definitely not written. 

Omnipresence is usually referred to in a religious context - such as the presence of God is believed to be everywhere, all the time. To help me tackle this concept, I asked my friend - who considers himself to be somewhat a god like figure, what he thinks of ubiquity/omnipresence. 

He said,"the ubiquitous influence of American culture" for example, and "my Snapchat selfies are ubiquitous". 

This helped me a lot in terms of thinking about the relationship between ubiquity and publishing.

I guess with the rise of social media, people are in a sense (not an entirely literal one), ubiquitous, as they are constantly present in someone else's life, either online or through some form of technology.

For example, being that my desire to be famous is not progressing so well, I have decided to become #foreverpresent on social media to help my cause. I do this by tweeting about every aspect of my life and posting a selfie on Facebook from every different angle...24 freaking hours a day. 

I'm joking, that sickens me. That is what I have deemed as ubiquitous publishing. 

Unfortunately there are people out there who are ubiquitous in that way, and even more unfortunately, their presence is felt more strongly than God's is sometimes. 

However, ubiquity does not always have to refer to a person or spiritual presence. It can also refer to ideas, cultures, values etc.

For example, cultural ubiquity, like my friend stated, can be so easily described by the influence of American culture all over the world.

There are very few parts of the world where an American influence is not felt. I will aptly demonstrate this with a visualisation of the global reach of McDonald's. 

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/26/the-global-distribution-of-starbucks-and-mcdonalds/

Some have argued that 'globalisation' is actually a cover up for the "americanisation' of global culture, therefore demonstrating its ubiquitousness nature. 

I stumbled across a great blog post that deals with this argument here: http://eclmplas.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/globalization-disneyfication-mcdonaldization/